Debates of Jan. 29th, 2021

Canada—United Kingdom Trade Continuity Agreement Implementation Act

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to be given the floor by this new occupant of the chair. I am a bit flustered.

I thank my colleague from the Green Party for the question. It is essentially the same question as before. I will reiterate my position. We are in favour of protecting the sovereignty of states because we are in favour of protecting the sovereignty of peoples. Obviously, we must avoid giving businesses the ability to sue governments. It is a dangerous thing that we must fight against.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Madam Speaker, like my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé, I am honoured to be given the floor by this new chair occupant.

First, I would like to thank someone who worked very hard on this file on behalf of the Bloc Québécois, and that is my colleague from Saint‑Hyacinthe—Bagot. I would like to thank him for the work he did in committee to defend the views of the Bloc Québécois and all the work he did for Quebeckers to help them better understand the issues related to trade agreements, something that many people feel is far removed from their daily lives. However, as we saw during the debate, these issues have a very real impact on people's lives and even affect the issue of independence, which is something that our party cares a lot about.

What is more, I would like to thank those of my colleagues who, like the member from Berthier—Maskinongé, spoke to Bill C‑216. We see that everything is related and that the work of the Bloc Québécois, what we are going to do to defend agriculture and food sovereignty, is essential. I therefore thank my colleagues for demonstrating how this teamwork helps Quebec to be better heard and defended.

It has been said before, but I think it bears repeating: The Bloc Québécois supports Bill C‑18. We are not questioning the need for trade agreements and treaties that have been around since the beginning of time and that improve people's lives from an economic, social and cultural perspective.

This debate is about a bill to implement a temporary agreement that will be in effect until a permanent trade agreement is signed. This historic example is proof that there is no black hole when at state decides to reclaim its sovereignty. Everyone wants to keep the trade channel open so we can reassure our businesses and our economy that there will be a smooth transition. Because this agreement is temporary, we can make improvements. Having to renegotiate is not a bad thing; it actually provides opportunities, including the opportunity to work on one of the issues that came up today, dispute resolution mechanisms. We will have no choice but to renegotiate in the coming months, and that is a good thing.

Here is the first thing I would like us to focus on now: transparency in all its forms. I feel like I have talked about this concept repeatedly during this Parliament and the previous one. I am going to talk about how the committee work played out and how we ended up studying this bill. I found the whole process totally ridiculous, and I want to stress that.

I will use an analogy to put the situation in context. In our personal life, when we reach an agreement or sign a contract to buy a car—a very practical example—or to get married, which outside of love may be very practical as well, the stakeholders, those who are affected by the agreement or the contract, have to be heard. They must be able to express their interests and their wishes and to discuss them. For there to be agreement, the people involved have to be able to talk to one another. The bill was tabled on December 9 at the Standing Committee on International Trade, just two days before the House rose for the break.

As my colleague from Saint‑Hyacinthe—Bagot put it so well, it really is like a theatre of the absurd. What is even worse is that the Liberals have no idea they live in such a world, although everyone else sees it.

The government brought this bill before the committee and asked that it be reported back. In this case, committee members were to examine a trade agreement and submit a report.

Without access to the text of the agreement, they had to take part in the deliberations, express opinions, take considerations into account and ask all their questions. This is completely absurd, even beyond absurd. This calls into question the very privileges of parliamentarians.

We are talking about legislating, deliberating and holding the government to account when we cannot even express our views on a bill. I do not think my constituents would be very pleased with me if I told them I voted for a bill without having any idea what it was about or what impact it might have. They would not understand that, like a good, obedient opposition member, I trusted the government, which has fooled us many times with these kinds of trade agreements. I do not need to name them, because they include last three agreements.

I believe that we have the right to legislate, deliberate and hold the government to account. However, to do this properly, we need all the information.

I find that the government is irresponsible. As parliamentarians and citizens, we must always learn from our mistakes, find solutions and do better. I am urging us to do so as we move forward. As this is a transitional agreement, we should not wait until the last minute again. We must renegotiate and we can establish a timeline so that this happens very quickly.

I would also like to talk about the historical perspective, which we as separatists have a keen interest in. I have already thanked my colleague from Saint‑Hyacinthe—Bagot for his analysis of Brexit, the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union. It represents a true precedent for Quebec. We are seeing the will of a nation to take back its sovereignty. We are moving from theory to reality.

How many times have we heard economic threats directed at separatists, telling us that we cannot make it without Canada? I think we have often seen that we are very capable of making it without Canada. My colleague from Saint‑Jean noted earlier that Quebec does not wish to be independent solely for economic considerations.

This is a practical, and not theoretical, example of what happens when a trading nation decides to take back its sovereignty. The United Kingdom's experience is a prime example. There was no black hole at the end of these agreements during the transition period. The United Kingdom has already restored 60 of the 70 trade agreements that had been signed with the European Union. I think it is worth noting that the Brits now have an agreement with Japan, which they did not have before.

Earlier the notion of turbulence came up. In response to that, I want to point out that no matter where you fly, your plane will go through turbulence, and yet you always get to your destination. I am happy to get on that plane, whether it is headed towards Ottawa or towards Quebec's independence.

As a final note on the topic of sovereignty, decision-making and the opportunity to do things on our own, I want to stress that our principles and our values are not for sale. Topics such as health, workers' rights, the environment, food sovereignty and democracy are all things that a sovereign state can protect. When we step up to a bargaining table, we do not negotiate over issues that are important to us, that make us who we are or that bring us together to work as a people, as a whole. That is why we want to sign our own trade agreements.

We could then protect supply management, softwood lumber, aluminum and all of the issues that make Quebec what it is. This is what my constituents want.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I have listened to members of the Bloc talk a lot about what I perceive to be a downplaying of the economic reality of what would happen if Quebec took on independence when it comes to economic trade. I have asked a couple of members about this in the past.

Can the member comment on what she thinks that economic reality would look like? It has been downplayed, and I have not heard about what it would look like if it transpired.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for reiterating her question about concerns related to Quebec's independence.

I would say that fear is the federalists' only argument. Fear is irrational. Jacques Parizeau was a Quebec premier who I really liked. The inscription on his headstone reads, “Do not be afraid”. I can say that we separatists are not afraid. Building a country is exciting. It is what motivates all the members of the Bloc Québécois when they rise in the House. We will not stop our work because of scare tactics, quite the contrary. We will show that Quebec is a viable nation that is alive and well.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am very concerned about any comparison suggesting that what happened with the U.K. within the European Union was a loss of sovereignty. Conflating the parallels of Quebec within Canada and the U.K. within the European Union is a false comparison. There are many other aspects of the multilateralism in the European Union, and the U.K.'s place within it, that we should not celebrate. They are ripping apart effective, functioning protections for the environment and human rights, as well as a display of multilateralism that was a good example for the world.

I respect that the hon. member and I have different views regarding the nation of Canada and the place Quebec has within it, but does she not agree with me that Canada would be so much more the poorer if we were to lose the critical role that Quebec plays in our environmental and cultural policies and our social fabric?

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Madam Speaker, there are so many things I want to say in my response to my colleague.

First, it is the United Kingdom's choice. In my opinion, withdrawing from a trade agreement does not mean that the U.K. will not respect or want to respect human rights. Withdrawing from the agreement also does not mean that the U.K. will no longer be interested in environmental issues, contrary to what my colleague was saying.

That brings me back to Quebec. Quebec is already struggling. Multilateralism can be worthwhile, but let us focus on the issue of the environment right now. Quebec is a leader in environmental issues, green energy and clean energy, but it is being penalized simply because it is located in Canada. The oil industry is still receiving federal funding, whereas Quebec is not getting anything for green energy, so there is a difference.

I want to say one last thing. Trade agreements are very important to peoples and to nations. I am talking about Bill C‑18. The members of the Bloc Québécois have all spoken about it, but it always comes down to Quebec's independence. The economy is very much linked to independence and how it would benefit Quebec.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to hear my colleague briefly comment on what seems to be a recurring issue with the Liberals, namely a lack of transparency, as we saw with this agreement and also the WE scandal and vaccines.

I would like her to briefly comment on the Liberals' dangerous tendency of not being upfront with Canadians.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for Shefford for her question.

The lack of transparency is an affront to democracy, and this is what we see from the Liberals day after day, session after session here in Parliament. We have seen it in many different ways. I expect more from a government, and as an elected official, I want to defend our democracy. In a democracy, people need to be able to make informed decisions, especially when these decisions affect our constituents, Quebeckers.

[The Acting Speaker, Bloc, Christine Normandin]

The member for Berthier—Maskinongé on a point of order.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to know how much time we have left today.

[The Acting Speaker, Bloc, Christine Normandin]

To answer the hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé's question, I am being told that we have 16 minutes remaining.

The hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-18, an act to implement the Canada-United Kingdom Trade Continuity Agreement. I will say at the outset that I support the passage of this legislation so that the agreement can be studied at committee. I will also say, in unequivocal terms, that it is absolutely vital for Canada to achieve a permanent comprehensive trade agreement with the United Kingdom. It is vital for jobs. It is vital for trade stability, given the fact that the United Kingdom is Canada's fifth-largest trading partner and third-largest export market. It is vital given the special relationship that Canada enjoys with the United Kingdom.

Our countries share a common history and common values. Indeed, I can think of no more special of a relationship that Canada enjoys than that with the United Kingdom, other than perhaps that with the United States.

In light of that common history and common values, and the fact that trade between Canada and the United Kingdom is a big deal, with $29 billion of two-way merchandise trade in 2019 and opportunities to expand, five years after the Brexit referendum the government has failed to achieve a permanent comprehensive trade agreement with the United Kingdom. What we have instead is a transitory agreement that merely continues the terms of trade between Canada and the United Kingdom from CETA.

Let me be clear. CETA was a groundbreaking agreement, negotiated under the leadership of Prime Minister Harper by my colleague, the hon. member for Abbotsford, while he served as Minister of International Trade. On the whole, it has been a win for Canada regarding trade with the European Union broadly and in the context of trade with the United Kingdom. That being said, CETA was negotiated several years ago, and in that regard I would submit it constitutes the floor: We could do better, and we have not yet to date.

Why have we not done better? It seems that the basis for not doing better is the government's set of priorities. For much of the past five years, the government has been focused, when it comes to trade, on a trade deal with Communist China, an unreliable trading partner that does not share our values, instead of focusing on a trade agreement with countries like the United Kingdom that are reliable trading partners and share our values.

In March 2019, at the very first opportunity, Canada walked out of negotiations with the United Kingdom. The government then proceeded to sit on its hands, not just for weeks or months, but for more than a year. The government continued to sit on its hands even after the EU-U.K. withdrawal agreement took effect in January 2020. The withdrawal agreement set in motion the date upon which the European Union and the United Kingdom would sever their ties and, consequently, the United Kingdom would no longer be a party to CETA. That date was December 31, 2020.

Notwithstanding that, while other countries secured permanent trade agreements with the United Kingdom, the current government instead chose to let the clock tick: January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, and achieved nothing. In November, we got this trade continuity agreement: a copy-and-paste of CETA, the floor for it, rather than something closer to the ceiling. The government then dithered yet again and failed to bring forward enabling legislation until two days before the House rose for Christmas. That made it virtually impossible to ratify the trade agreement by the December 31 deadline.

As a result of the government's mismanagement, Canada was put at the precipice in its trade relationship with the United Kingdom, with no trade agreement in place but a trade relationship that would be governed by WTO rules. It was a completely untenable situation that was only averted as a result of a memorandum of understanding the government entered into on December 22, nine days before the December 31 deadline. Talk about cutting it close. Talk about a lack of a plan. Talk about a lack of prioritizing Canada's important trading relationship with the United Kingdom and, more broadly, the very special relationship we enjoy with the United Kingdom.

As I say, maintaining the CETA terms does provide stability. It provides continuity for the exchange of goods and services between Canada and the United Kingdom, and that is a good thing. However, we could have done a lot better. We could have addressed a number of issues with CETA, including non-tariff barriers; opportunities to expand the export of agricultural products and goods, particularly beef and pork, where we have had significant challenges with the European Union; and opportunities to expand investment and to achieve greater regulatory alignment and to make closer the relationship between Canada and the United Kingdom.

It is true that this agreement does contemplate that within a year of its ratification, negotiations will commence toward a comprehensive trade agreement to be concluded within three years. However, there is no mechanism to require that to happen. There is no sunset clause to this agreement.

Consequently, what we have is a purportedly temporary agreement that might in fact be a permanent one. I hope it is not. I hope the government refocuses. I hope it prioritizes getting back to the negotiating table, something it largely failed to do over the last five years, and engages with the United Kingdom, as described by Prime Minister Boris Johnson, correctly, I believe, as an “open, generous, outward-looking, internationalist and free-trading” country.

Let us get back to the negotiating table to negotiate a permanent comprehensive trade deal that will be a win-win for Canada and the United Kingdom.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, from listening to my colleague's intervention today, although I recognize that he accepts that this interim agreement is important and acceptable for now, I do not see his appreciating why businesses might actually want that stability now.

Certainly business owners in my community who do a lot of exporting are going to want to know at this time what they can depend on, that there is continuity and that what they are used will continue. Right now in the middle of a pandemic is not the time, in my opinion, when businesses want to start worrying about how trade relationships, especially with a country like the U.K., might be affected.

Would the member like to comment on how he sees this from a business perspective in terms of that continuity?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Kingston and the Islands is right that continuity and certainty are important to Canadian businesses that do business in the United Kingdom. That is why it is unfortunate that we have this 11th hour agreement that left Canadian businesses in a precarious position, not knowing until the 11th hour that there would in fact be, at this point, an interim agreement, a carry-over agreement. As a result, business, labour, and many sectors across Canada and Parliament were not adequately consulted.

It has been a failed process and it is an unfortunate one. It could have been worse, but it certainly should have been better.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

Our colleague opposite spoke about the anxiety of businesses that are not considered essential. I would like my colleague from St. Albert—Edmonton to tell us about parliamentarians' anxiety when they have to work on international agreements without seeing the text, and the anxiety of supply-managed farmers who are always sacrificed at the last minute.

In conclusion, does he not think that we should pass Bill C-216 to avoid nasty surprises and prevent anxiety for our agricultural producers, who are the foundation of our economy?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Berthier—Maskinongé is right that there has been a lot of uncertainty. He is also right to suggest that the government has no reason to brag when it comes to supply-managed sectors. The government, after all, did not get a deal on that. All it got was an extension of the current terms of CETA. With respect to the government's record on delivering compensation to supply-managed sectors in respect of other agreements, we know it has failed to meet the promises it made.

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, is the member concerned about the government's saying that it will start negotiations in a year and that its goal is to have an agreement in three years with no sunset clause? If it does not reach its goal in three years, I guess it will change its goal to another three years and if it does not achieve that, it will go on for another three years.

Is the member concerned that there is no sunset clause to make a permanent agreement? Right now, it is not bound to anything; it just continues on. I would like to hear the member's comments on that, please.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in short, yes, I am concerned about the absence of a sunset clause. Although this agreement is being billed as a temporary transitional agreement, a carry-over agreement, and the government has gone to pains to emphasize that fact, there is no guarantee. It could in fact be a permanent agreement; hence, the need for the government to focus and get back to the table so that we do reach a permanent agreement like other countries have achieved but we have not.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I would like to make a brief comment before moving to the next question.

I am so grateful to the hon. member forSaint-Jean for replacing me for a few minutes. It is sometimes necessary on Fridays. She heard a point of order, and there were some problems with the technology. She did an excellent job, and I thank her.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

I request a recorded division.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Accordingly, pursuant to an order made on Monday, January 25, 2021, the division stands deferred until Monday, February 1, 2021, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

It being 1:30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

The House resumed from November 2, 2020 consideration of the motion that Bill C-229, An Act to repeal certain restrictions on shipping, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Oil Tanker Moratorium Act

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I believe I was only one minute into it. I am not 100% sure, but I think I had about nine minutes left. Is that the case?

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. parliamentary secretary raises a good point, and it is good for him to check.

In fact, per our records, he has the full 10 minutes for his remarks.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, when I think of Bill C-229, the first thing that comes to mind is that the Conservative Party is not necessarily in tune with the expectations Canadians have with respect to the responsibilities and the need to commit to protecting our environment, whether it is the land or water. It will be interesting to see if the entire Conservative caucus supports Bill C-229.

Bill C-229 would repeal Bill C-48. Members might recall that Bill C-48 was the oil tanker moratorium act, which passed back in June 2019. If members were to review the Debates, they would find that it was fairly well discussed, whether in committee or on the floor of the House. However, at the time, the only party that took Bill C-48 to task was the Conservative Party. The New Democrats, members of the Green Party and the Bloc supported it.

I like to think that the Government of Canada has done a good job in balancing the important issue of our environment and economic development. It has been demonstrated by policy decisions. Examples of that include Bill C-48, the oil tanker moratorium act, which received support from the above noted parties. Many provincial jurisdictions were very supportive of the need for the moratorium.

We can look other issues. For example, the government worked very closely with the provincial NDP premier and were able to achieve the LNG, which is good for the Province of British Columbia and therefore good for Canada. It was the single largest private-government investment in infrastructure and ensured that LNG would in fact get off the ground. However, it would not have been possible had it not been for the support of the NDP in the Province of British Columbia.

We can look at Trans Mountain, which, ultimately, will be successful. The project is under construction and will ensure we are able to move a natural resource to the coast. The former government under Stephen Harper was never able to do that.

I like to think the reason we have been successful in recognizing these valuable projects is because, as a government, we are also very much aware of and sensitive to our environment, indigenous concerns and to what Canadians expect us to respond to. At the end of the day, Bill C-229 would move us backward. The first thing I think of when I see legislation of this nature is what else we can anticipate from the Conservative Party that will move us backward.

I suspect that if we were to canvass Canadians, we would find that there is fairly good support on environmental initiatives and when we get the type of general acceptance those initiatives, the Conservative Party needs to wake up and sense that reality.

This whole Conservative spin seems to be more focused on trying to give a false impression that we cannot handle the environment and the economy in such a way that development of natural resources can continue. It can, and we have demonstrated that. Canadians expect the Government of Canada to balance economic needs with environmental goals.

The tanker moratorium that was passed in 2019 is an excellent example of how we can balance and achieve just that. The moratorium provides the highest level of environmental protection for British Columbia's northern coastline. It is integral to the livelihoods and cultures of indigenous and coastal communities that are located there and ensures the protection and preservation of that.

This is another example of the Government of Canada delivering on commitments to Canadians. After all, no one should be surprised. We made this commitment. It was in the mandate letter given to the minister at the time. The federal government met with many different indigenous groups, communities and a wide spectrum of stakeholders. We listened and gathered input on the moratorium. Our engagement was extensive. It was passed back in 2019 because of the amount of that engagement. We wanted to ensure we got it right.

Whenever bold initiatives are taken to try to move forward on important files, we will always get some criticism. There is no doubt about that. However, what surprises me is the level of criticism and amount of spin coming from the Conservative Party of Canada. One has to wonder what the motivation is for that. Is it purely the political optics of espousing false information about how the government does not care about western Canada, in particular the province of Alberta? That might have a lot more to do with the political motivation of the official opposition. If those members were to put their motivation to the side and start to focus their attention on the environment, on protecting our waterways, they could maybe see the true intrinsic value to the legislation.

I call upon members of the Conservative Party to think again about this legislation and understand that the consensus out there in favour of the current law. Are we to assume that if the leader of the official opposition were to become prime minister some day, heaven forbid, that he would get rid of the moratorium? That is the impression they will give when it comes time to vote on this. Will the leader of the Conservative Party support this private member's bill? I think a lot of Canadians would be gravely concerned to see that.

If that is the case, I for one will be one of those individuals who will be talking about that in the next federal election. I believe that the people who I represent, and Canadians as a whole, understand and appreciate the moratorium that was put in place through Bill C-48.

Hopefully, we will see the Conservatives come on side and recognize what Bill C-229 would do and vote against it.